Nambla marching at Godless March

[Rae]

Hey, Exo, how do you feel about marching in the Christians Across America march alongside Satanists?

What? There's no evidence that Satanists are involved? Well, how do you feel about it anyway?

THE above is called TROLLING. It is rude, insulting, and bad. It makes people not want to talk to you. It makes your religion look bad, too. It is what you are doing. Stop it. Now.

 

[exodus4 3 2 1]

WRONG. Nambla is a registrant with the National Park Service for participation in the Godless March. I have called (ugh!) Nambla and they verified that they are going to be marching. Go to their website and they will tell you the same thing. Ask for Byron. It is a legitimate question and the questions which flow from it are legitimate. Quit trying to use ad hominems against me to derail a legitimate thread. One consequence of rejecting Judeo-Christian moral rules is that you get this...this is the slippery slope of secular humanist relative morality-and guess what?its gonna get a whole lot worse! "When a woman can legally kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?"Mother Theresa

 

[BigEd]

This post is not apologetics, it is new and current events so it will be moved there.

Thanks,
Big ed

 

[exodus4 3 2 1]

thanks Big Ed, my apologies, I am new to forum, you are right ,it is a news and current events item.gotcha boss!

 

[Rae]

Exo (who still hasn't substantiated his claim, as is his responsibility):
One consequence of rejecting Judeo-Christian moral rules is that you get this...this is the slippery slope of secular humanist relative morality-and guess what?its gonna get a whole lot worse!

Rae:
I'm not a secular humanist, hon. I'm a Pagan. My morals and those of the atheists here are, ironically enough, apparently the same as YOUR "Christian" morals. No one here has said, "Gee, NAMBLA being sponsored at the Godless Americans march is a good idea."

Exo:
Quit trying to use ad hominems against me to derail a legitimate thread.

Rae:
How about you quit trying to ad hom me and actually provide the PROOF from Nambla itself or the Godless Americans march? That would MAKE this a legit thread, not just your unsupported assertion.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
WRONG. Nambla is a registrant with the National Park Service for participation in the Godless March. I have called (ugh!) Nambla and they verified that they are going to be marching. Go to their website and they will tell you the same thing.

I posted NAMBLA's website above.  I saw nothing.  Why don't you provide the evidence that you claim. 

Also, as I said before, even if some of them do plan to attend, how would you propose that AA stop them?  They are not listed on the AA website as a supporting organization.

So again, what do you suggest that AA do if your as yet unsupported claim is true and that NAMBLA plans to march? Have them thrown in jail?

One consequence of rejecting Judeo-Christian moral rules is that you get this...this is the slippery slope of secular humanist relative morality-and guess what?its gonna get a whole lot worse! "When a woman can legally kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?"Mother Theresa

And that support for your original claim? Please post your support before taking this in a different direction.

 

[secularfuture]

I'm not marching either. I have a job, like most humans, that I must attend to.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by secularfuture
I'm not marching either. I have a job, like most humans, that I must attend to.

 

I'll be marching!

 

[excreationist]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
WRONG. Nambla is a registrant with the National Park Service for participation in the Godless March. I have called (ugh!) Nambla and they verified that they are going to be marching. Go to their website and they will tell you the same thing. Ask for Byron.

Well I've sent them emails trying to get an answer from them. So did you talk to them by email or by phone or what? Why was Nambla alledgedly registered with the National Park Service rather than with?

According to the Godless March site, to qualify you just need to be against discrimination against non-believers, etc, statement of principles and "The Task Force will not "pick and choose" which groups or individuals qualify. Instead, we suggest that ALL those who support the Godless Americans March on Washington do so with a spirit of mutual respect and acknowledgment of the diversity of our community. Participating or endorsing the March on Washington does not mean that we agree totally with all other groups or individuals."

If another organisation turns up (like Nambla) and doesn't even register with GodlessAmericans.org you can't hold GodlessAmericans.org responsible. You said that they registered with the National Park Service - so it is the NPS's fault for letting Nabla come.

...."When a woman can legally kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" Mother Theresa

I think foetuses that are aborted are usually ones that wouldn't be able to survive very well outside the womb anyway... they are hardly "children". So I guess if it were up to you desperate women would end up risking their lives having home abortions. In the old days there were a lot of single mothers who just gave their kids up for adoption... (today they might have an abortion instead or raise the kid while they are single) and many of those kids would go to orphages and they were often abused.... so those "unwanted kids" often literally used to be unwanted - they were given away and no-one wanted them. Now I think there can be a shortage of kids for those who want to adopt.



EDITED: Removed links promoting the Godless March.

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
why arent you going to the march? don't you really believe in your cause? and how can you judge NAMBLA? why shouldnt the age of consent be fifteen or fourteen? isnt all morality relative? England, Sweden,Holland etc are heading to the lower age of consent..are they all wrong acording to your standards?

I'm pleased to know you participate in every Christian march throughout the country. Otherwise you don't believe in your cause, eh? Anyone who doesn't want to march for a cause--no matter when it is or how far away or what else is going on in their lives--- doesn't *really* support it.

Okaaaaay.

I can judge NAMBLA the same way I can judge anything else. They are pediphiles and I think that is wrong and destructive and criminal. It has exactly ZERO to do with my atheism.

The age of consent should not be lowered because 14 and 15 year olds are not mature enough to make good choices and must be protected.

Morality is relative to common sense, society, things that protect the weak and bring peace and harmony to people living together.

Yes, if the countries you mention are lowering their standards, they are wrong in my opinion.

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
which of the following do atheists say are immoral? 1.advocating the age of consent to be fifteen or fourteen 2.prostitution 3. adult pornography 4. polygamy 5. incest with consenting adults 5. adultery 6. fornication 7. homosexuality 8. bestiality 9. illegal drug use .....and 10. and why is Nambla's advocating the age of consent be changed to fifteen or fourteen immoral when the others (one through nine) are not immoral? and why are you all not willing to march alongside the NAMBLA people? who are you to judge them? what gives you that right?

None of it is immoral, depending on who you are and what you believe. But having the birthday of your eighteenth year arbitrarily be the beginning of the age of concent is just a time and effort saving measure. Certainly I have known 14 year olds who could handle sex, I believe. Maybe two of them. All the rest? Too many serious decisions and circumstances they aren't aware of. I sometimes play what we like to call "all ages" shows, which means no drinking so anyone can make it in. And I have spent time talking to young ladies in the high-school age bracket. It is my belief based on these conversations that you have to be truly mentally handicapped and vile not to be able to swindle these young person's into a compromising position. I believe I could do it and I am ugly and lame. These people haven't the experience to understand how easy it is fro a predator. And I believe that is why we have that arbitrary line of demarcation. It's a relatively new line, by the way. Being married at 14-16 was pretty much the standard way of things for most of human history.

As for number 10, it's not immoral. It's simply flawed thinking in my and many other people's oppinions. They can advocate anything they want if that's what they want to do. It's freedom, and even when I dissagree, as long as no laws are being broken I am all for their rights. If they want to come out and march it's not my problem. I don't support their efforts and that is that.

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
which of the following do atheists say are immoral? 1.advocating the age of consent to be fifteen or fourteen 2.prostitution 3. adult pornography 4. polygamy 5. incest with consenting adults 5. adultery 6. fornication 7. homosexuality 8. bestiality 9. illegal drug use .....and 10. and why is Nambla's advocating the age of consent be changed to fifteen or fourteen immoral when the others (one through nine) are not immoral? and why are you all not willing to march alongside the NAMBLA people? who are you to judge them? what gives you that right?

1. Yes--although advocacy (rather than actually committing an offense with an underage person) is more misguided than immoral

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. No

8. Yes

9. Yes

Gee, I DIDN'T agree that all those things are not immoral, did I?

The only one I didn't condemn was homosexuality. Now will you stop trying to characterize all atheists as immoral or advocating immorality?

I wouldn't associate myself in any way with NAMBLA advocates and (read this vewy vewy cawefuwwy wabbit!):

NAMBLA has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists can and do judge people all the time, just like anyone else. We have morals.

 

[HazyRigby]

Why is pornography immoral, Humanista? Or "fornication" or drug use, for that matter?

And by the way, don't we all love folks who lump "atheists" into the same category? It's obvious to me that Humanista and I could not be more different in what we view as "immoral." Yet we share a similar world-view. Isn't is funny how--I don't know--DIVERSE atheists are?

And as for NAMBLA--as far as I'm concerned, they can TALK about whatever they want. They can have their club, and they can fantasize about whatever they want. They aren't hurting anyone if they participate in no illegal activities. In fact, talking to other people who have the same desires as they do may actually help them stave off some of the impulses, I don't know. All I know is that they have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, and their participation in the March (if they are, in fact, doing so) smacks of a need to affiliate themselves with more mainstream organizations. Who can stop them? Nobody. It's a non-issue. Just as NAMBLA doesn't represent mainstream atheist thought, the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christian thought.

Anyone else think the person who started this thread has some serious issues?

 

[seebs]

We've had threads in S,R,&E before on what the atheists think about morality, or how their moral systems work. I think it's neat.

 

[LadyShea]

It's neat? ROFL...I love you seebs

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LadyShea
It's neat? ROFL...I love you seebs

Well, I guess, I get really frustrated with people who assume that, since they believe that morality comes from God (a belief I share), that people who don't believe in God must not have morality. I think they must believe in a much less real God than I do; the one I believe in makes morality understandable to *everyone*, not just people who believe in Him.

That said, I really like seeing the different ways people form moral systems. You learn a lot by looking at how other people solved the big problems.

 

[LadyShea]

Well I think it's neat too....just the wording gave me the giggles. It is frustrating to be a moral (to my standards) person and have many people think I can't possibly be...it hurts because I really like people and being thought of as immoral is a difficult wall to break through.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Well I think it's neat too....just the wording gave me the giggles. It is frustrating to be a moral (to my standards) person and have many people think I can't possibly be...it hurts because I really like people and being thought of as immoral is a difficult wall to break through.

Yeah. I've been told that I tend to underreport positive states. e.g., I find the idea of the inherent human drive to become moral "neat". I once described sex as "pleasant". Heh.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Secular humanist and secular transhumanist
DO NOT advocate pedophilia.

Catholic & Christian priests sure do though!

Followed by...

Atheists have morals. We don't act stupid, or do stupid things, because we have common sense.

Riiiighhhht.

 

[Rae]

Uh....Soul? If a Catholic says something stupid, followed by something you said, can I assume you agree with her/him?

No?

Then don't assume all atheists agree with what all other atheists say. Really. Do you agree with everything Andrew Greeley says? I disagree with things many prominent Pagans say, specifically Edain McCoy and Silver RavenWolf. You are unfairly judging above, in a way I presume you wouldn't like if applied to you.